Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 597110,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/597110/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 154,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“The Speaker of the Senate shall convene a meeting of the Senate to hear charges against the governor.” That is a responsibility of the Senate. It is not a responsibility of any Committee. If you do not believe me, read Standing Order No.68 (1)(b). It says:- “The Senate, by resolution, may appoint a special committee comprising of eleven of its members to investigate the matter.” Therefore, their role is to investigate. It is not to make a finding of guilt or otherwise. Going forward, Standing Order No.68 (2) says:- “A Special Committee appointed under this subsection (2) shall- (a) investigate the matter; and (b) report to the Senate within ten days on whether it finds the particulars of the allegations against the governor to have been substantiated.” It reads “allegations” and not charges. Before the Senate now are charges. Therefore, the hearings of the charges have not taken place in the Senate. If you do not agree with the reason that I am advancing, read Standing Order No.68 (5). It says:- “If a majority of all the county delegations of the Senate vote to uphold any impeachment charge, the governor shall cease to hold office.” So, what goes before the Committee is not charges. It is for them to look at the particulars of the charges; whether there is something there for the Senate to begin a hearing of the charges. So, my case is that this process was put in the Senate for a very particular reason. I would really hate a situation where we can convict somebody where there is no substance or evidence. If we give the role of making findings or violations in accordance with the Constitution to committees, that will be usurping the role of the Senate sitting as a plenary. Therefore, this is something we need to look at. I do not think there is conflict in the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are clear that it is for us to hear the charges. It makes sense because when we have a report coming before the House and once laid, we have nothing to do about it. It is talking about convictions and violations when they are limited to show that allegations have been substantiated. This particular function was given to the Senate as part of its oversight role on the county governments and similar institutions within the counties. If people out there begin to see counties like Murang’a suffering and we are returning verdicts of this nature, then this role may as well go to the National Assembly or any other institution. Therefore, I am asking the Senate, that we are still seized of this matter. We can still proceed to hear the matter or return it to the Committee and tell them they have gone beyond their mandate. We can tell them to tell us whether the particulars of the allegations have been substantiated and then we will deal with the charges."
}